High Court Upholds Kawira Mwangaza's Impeachment as Meru Governor

The High Court has affirmed the impeachment of Meru Governor Kawira Mwangaza, delivering a decisive ruling on Friday, March 14, that validates the Senate’s decision to remove her from office.

Justice Bahati Mwamuye presided over the case, determining that the Senate acted within the confines of the Constitution during the impeachment proceedings. Mwangaza had contested her impeachment, citing procedural flaws and insufficient public engagement. These claims have been rejected by the High Court, which states that the governor failed to provide adequate evidence to support her allegations.

The court emphasizes the constitutional mandate to adhere to all requirements regarding the vacancy created by the impeachment. A central argument in Mwangaza’s challenge is the alleged violation of court orders by the Senate. She contended that the Senate proceeded with her impeachment despite pending legal actions aimed at halting the process.

The court, however, has found no substantiated evidence to support the claim that the Senate defied any valid court orders. The ruling specifies that "The Senate could not have disobeyed orders that were never properly brought before it," emphasizing Mwangaza's responsibility to formally present the relevant court orders to halt the proceedings.

Regarding the issue of public participation, the court acknowledges its constitutional importance but clarifies that it primarily occurs at the county level during an impeachment process, rather than within the Senate. Mwangaza's claim that her impeachment lacked public participation was challenged by the respondents. The court has refrained from ruling on this particular aspect, noting that it is a central point in a separate, ongoing case before the Meru Court.

The High Court has also scrutinized whether due process was followed during the impeachment, as required by the Constitution. Mwangaza claimed that she was granted only two minutes to defend herself, thereby denying her a fair hearing. However, the court observes that official records indicated she was given the opportunity to speak.

"Whether she chose to remain silent or not did not change the fact that she was given a chance to present her defense," the court states.

The court has found no evidence to suggest that she was denied adequate time to present her defense, and notes that her legal team did not raise objections regarding the allocated time. Consequently, the court concludes that the procedural requirements for impeachment had been duly met. This ruling carries significant implications for the political landscape of Meru County.